[USA] SJEDINJENE AMERIČKE DRŽAVE - unutrašnja politika i uticaj na svetska kretanja

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

14 minutes ago, nonick said:

 

Ma bez veze. Od ovog demokrate treba da se distanciraju sto vise mogu. Zato oni na visim polozajima nisu ni hteli da komentarisu ovo.

Ako taj Bragg dobije nesto, dobro, ali ko zna sta on zamislja. 

 

 

Velika porota je glasala da se podigne optuzba, onda tuzioc nema gde nego da podigne optuzbu. 

 

Stvar je da je ceo sistem amaterski. Velika porota se sastavlja od rendom gradjana koji mogu i ne moraju da se razumeju u zakon, a oni odlucuju sta je po zakonu i za sta se dize optuzba. Kao sto i rendom gradjani koji budu izabrani za porotnike odluce da li je optuzen kriv ili nije, na osnovu sestog cula i iznetih dokaza, a svodi se na percepciju, ne na znanje. 

[Nek grmi jako]

Očekivali smo da će optužnica biti snažnija od slučaja koji su prethodno odbacili federalni tužioci, ali ona je u stvari još slabija nego što se mislilo.

 

Breg na konferenciji za medije nije mogao da objasni običnom čoveku zašto Tramp treba da ide u zatvor, CNN se takođe koprca bez udarca koji bi Trampa poslao na patos, Bela kuća odbija da daje izjave čak i kad ih pitaju šta će biti ako republikanski tužioci pokrenu postupke protiv porodica Bajden i Klinton, ili protiv Nensi Pelosi...

 

A meni su najzanimljiviji od svega odgovori okupljenih demsa na Menhetnu, kada ih pitaju koji zakon je prekršio Tramp i zbog čega tačno bi trebalo da ide u zatvor.

 

Ljudi nemaju pojma o čemu je reč iako su došli da podrže tužioca i iako žive u zemlji u kojoj su milioni informacija dustupni svake sekunde.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Nek grmi jako

[Angelia]

2 hours ago, nonick said:

 

Ma bez veze. Od ovog demokrate treba da se distanciraju sto vise mogu. Zato oni na visim polozajima nisu ni hteli da komentarisu ovo.

Ako taj Bragg dobije nesto, dobro, ali ko zna sta on zamislja. 

Politicki show, mogli su kao sto sam rekla pre par strana da mu napisu kaznu za neplacen porez. Btw optuznica je jos slabija jer se kosi sa federalnom pozicijom. 

Uglavnom on je mobilisao oko 80% svog glasackog tela, ako je cilj bio zaustaviti Desantisovu kandidaturu - uspeli su, samo to mozda bas i nije dobro za njih. Tramp je podigao 10 mill za ovih par dana za kampanju. Napravili su presedan koji ce im se lako olupati o glavu.

 

Koriscenje pravnog sistema na napad na politickog protivnika, nezamislivo u US. Isto kao i dva impicmenta. Na sta je spala Demokratska stranka je blago receno odurno.

Moze nekome da se svidja ili ne svidja Tramp, ali opravdavanje ovakvog poteza moza samo da bude politicka neobrazovanost. 

 

sad naravno samo da navijaju da Tramp ne dobije izbore, posto su otvorili vrata za osvetnicko proganjanje.

[nonick]

1 minute ago, Angelia said:

Politicki show, mogli su kao sto sam rekla pre par strana da mu napisu kaznu za neplacen porez. Btw optuznica je jos slabija jer se kosi sa federalnom pozicijom. 

Uglavnom on je mobilisao oko 80% svog glasackog tela, ako je cilj bio zaustaviti Desantisovu kandidaturu - uspeli su, samo to mozda bas i nije dobro za njih. Tramp je podigao 10 mill za ovih par dana za kampanju. Napravili su presedan koji ce im se lako olupati o glavu.

 

Koriscenje pravnog sistema na napad na politickog protivnika, nezamislivo u US. Isto kao i dva impicmenta. Na sta je spala Demokratska stranka je blago receno odurno.

Moze nekome da se svidja ili ne svidja Tramp, ali opravdavanje ovakvog poteza moza samo da bude politicka neobrazovanost. 

 

sad naravno samo da navijaju da Tramp ne dobije izbore, posto su otvorili vrata za osvetnicko proganjanje.

Ovo nema veze sa vrhom demokratske stranke, ili kao celinom. To samo Trump i Trumpisti hajpuju. Bulls eye za njegovu kampanju. 

[Angelia]

21 minutes ago, nonick said:

Ovo nema veze sa vrhom demokratske stranke, ili kao celinom. To samo Trump i Trumpisti hajpuju. Bulls eye za njegovu kampanju. 

Vidi moguce - ali nije da se samo "trampisti hajpuju", dosta ljudi sa vrha Dems su izrazili "podrsku", izokola ali jesu.

Njemu je bulls eye, ali za US je jako lose.

I da videh sta je @Baby napisala da je DA "morao" da ga optuzi zbog Grand Jury, to je potpuno netacno, pravno. DA iznosi najcesce pred Grand jury, kad ne pricamo o situaciji gde se zna da je Grand Jury bias, slucaj da bi video da li ima dobre dokaze. To je obicno pokrice za DA, ali ne znaci da mora.

 

Preletela sam par strana optuznice, nemam vremena za vise, ali deluje komplet suplje. Uz to reality show koji ce da traje do izbora, znaci Tramp je dobio besplatnu reklamu na svakoj televiziji. Da bi se vrh demokratske stranke oprao od ovoga, treba direktno da kaze da su protiv, i DOJ treba da kaze da se kosi sa federalnim zakonima. 

 

Nije Bragg tek tako samoinicijativno to odlucio, znamo kako je Cuomo prosao kad se oteo kontroli stranke.  To nije nikakva teorija zavere, nego realnost politike.

[nonick]

Da sumiram danasnjicu.

Trump, da se ne izrazim vulgarno, ima republikansku partiju (za) u saci. 😀

 

Vetecerasnji mesijasko/mega-maga lazovski govor u Maralagu stavlja repse medju rock and hard place. Nema braco, trazili ste gledajte, Trump ili nista. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by nonick

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

1 hour ago, Angelia said:

Vidi moguce - ali nije da se samo "trampisti hajpuju", dosta ljudi sa vrha Dems su izrazili "podrsku", izokola ali jesu.

Njemu je bulls eye, ali za US je jako lose.

I da videh sta je @Baby napisala da je DA "morao" da ga optuzi zbog Grand Jury, to je potpuno netacno, pravno. DA iznosi najcesce pred Grand jury, kad ne pricamo o situaciji gde se zna da je Grand Jury bias, slucaj da bi video da li ima dobre dokaze. To je obicno pokrice za DA, ali ne znaci da mora.

 

 

U pravu si, nije morao, ali jeste hteo... GJ je odlucio da ima dovoljno dokaza, bias ili ne (da je Biden, bilo po pravu, cim je Tramp onda je bias )... Kako god, Trampa ce biti dovoljno po novinama, njegovi nece odustati od njega ni da ubije nekog na petoj aveniji (to je jedna od malobrojih stvari za koje je bio u pravu), neke ce odbiti, a druge nece pridobiti... tako da, nada umire poslednja. 

 

 

 

[Nek grmi jako]

Ali MSNBC koji nije emitovao Trampov govor 

 

Pa jel to realno? A Putin i Si u fazonu, e tako se vodi država, trebalo je da prođu decenije da vas naučimo 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Nek grmi jako

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, nonick said:

Da sumiram danasnjicu.

Trump, da se ne izrazim vulgarno, ima republikansku partiju (za) u saci. 😀

 

Vetecerasnji mesijasko/mega-maga lazovski govor u Maralagu stavlja repse medju rock and hard place. Nema braco, trazili ste gledajte, Trump ili nista. 

Jbte kad nalazite vremean da gledate sve govore 

 

Kako god - gledacemo reality show. Lose za US. Sta god da su Dems planirali ili nisu, losa izvedba. Katastrofalna

[Angelia]

40 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

U pravu si, nije morao, ali jeste hteo... GJ je odlucio da ima dovoljno dokaza, bias ili ne (da je Biden, bilo po pravu, cim je Tramp onda je bias )... Kako god, Trampa ce biti dovoljno po novinama, njegovi nece odustati od njega ni da ubije nekog na petoj aveniji (to je jedna od malobrojih stvari za koje je bio u pravu), neke ce odbiti, a druge nece pridobiti... tako da, nada umire poslednja. 

 

 

 

Nista tu nije po pravu. Ako je Hilari prosla bez optuznce, ovo je potpuno besmisleno. Znam da ljudima koji mrze Trampa ovo godi, ali ne kontaju koliko je stetno. Zakoni se ne prave za jednu osobu, ili sve tretiras isto, ili unistavas sistem.

 

Sa ovim su osigurali da Tramp dobije podrsku kozervativaca koji ga btw nikad nisu ni smatrali svojim. Ovo je otvoreno napad na politickog protivnika, nije cak ni pitanje Trampa ili ne, ako otvoreno ne osude politicko proganjanje, Dems su se smestili u totalitarni klub. Znaci nista zakon, nista Ustav, pobeda po svaku cenu, ono za sta su Trampa optuzivali.

 

Oni koji su tvrdili da stite demokratiju, su totalitarni. Znaci Dems su alt-right, potpuno isto.

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

50 minutes ago, Angelia said:

Nista tu nije po pravu. Ako je Hilari prosla bez optuznce, ovo je potpuno besmisleno. Znam da ljudima koji mrze Trampa ovo godi, ali ne kontaju koliko je stetno. Zakoni se ne prave za jednu osobu, ili sve tretiras isto, ili unistavas sistem.

 

Sa ovim su osigurali da Tramp dobije podrsku kozervativaca koji ga btw nikad nisu ni smatrali svojim. Ovo je otvoreno napad na politickog protivnika, nije cak ni pitanje Trampa ili ne, ako otvoreno ne osude politicko proganjanje, Dems su se smestili u totalitarni klub. Znaci nista zakon, nista Ustav, pobeda po svaku cenu, ono za sta su Trampa optuzivali.

 

Oni koji su tvrdili da stite demokratiju, su totalitarni. Znaci Dems su alt-right, potpuno isto.

 

Ma daj Andjo, kada sam pricala da je sudstvo puno rupetina jer se pravo tumaci, za vreme onog malo sto se samobranio, onda si se opirala da je sve po pravu. Sada je sve po biasu. Mislim, kakve veze ideologija ima sa pravom. Zaista mislis da su tuzioci budale sto podizu optuzbe, tako, samounistice karijeru da bi se svetili ideoloski?! 

Kakve veze imaju demokrate?! Problem je sto trampisti uvek pretabace krivicu na nekog drugog veci od toga sto neko ide na sud. Ni prvi ni poslednji. Kako prodje, prosao je (da mulja i da je muljao ceo zivot je jasno svakom ko hoce da vidi), a slucaj zavisi od toga kakav ce biti tuzioc i kakva ce biti odbrana vise nego od toga da li je kriv. Treba ubediti porotu... i tu je kraj price. 

[Angelia]

5 hours ago, Baby said:

 

Ma daj Andjo, kada sam pricala da je sudstvo puno rupetina jer se pravo tumaci, za vreme onog malo sto se samobranio, onda si se opirala da je sve po pravu. Sada je sve po biasu. Mislim, kakve veze ideologija ima sa pravom. Zaista mislis da su tuzioci budale sto podizu optuzbe, tako, samounistice karijeru da bi se svetili ideoloski?! 

Kakve veze imaju demokrate?! Problem je sto trampisti uvek pretabace krivicu na nekog drugog veci od toga sto neko ide na sud. Ni prvi ni poslednji. Kako prodje, prosao je (da mulja i da je muljao ceo zivot je jasno svakom ko hoce da vidi), a slucaj zavisi od toga kakav ce biti tuzioc i kakva ce biti odbrana vise nego od toga da li je kriv. Treba ubediti porotu... i tu je kraj price. 

Nije svaki slucaj isti. A ti se u sudstvo i pravo uopste ne razumes. Ovde su presli granicu, a ako tebi nije jasno kakve veze ima ideologija s time, problem je do tebe.

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

4 hours ago, Angelia said:

Nije svaki slucaj isti. A ti se u sudstvo i pravo uopste ne razumes. Ovde su presli granicu, a ako tebi nije jasno kakve veze ima ideologija s time, problem je do tebe.

 

Naravno...

[DJORDJE]

5 hours ago, Angelia said:

Nije svaki slucaj isti. A ti se u sudstvo i pravo uopste ne razumes. Ovde su presli granicu, a ako tebi nije jasno kakve veze ima ideologija s time, problem je do tebe.

Zasto su presli granicu? Zato sto to Trump kaze? Zatvori su puni onih koji su falsifikovali poslovne knjige, nekoliko  njegovih najblizih saradnika priznalo krivicu , a on nevin kao Sormy Daniles.

optuzba je prosla kroz Grand Jury , a njena uloga je upravo to da se onemoguci tuzilac da nekoga proganja bez razloga. Trump se ceo zivot mota po sudovima, sam se hvalio da je ekspert za koriscenje pravosudja u svoju korist, eto jos jedne prilike da se oproba.

[erwin]

Quote

As Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office who played a significant role in the Trump investigation prior to his resignation in 2022, wrote in a recent book, a key legal question that will determine whether Trump can be charged under the felony version of New York’s false records law has never been resolved by any appellate court in the state of New York.

The felony statute requires Bragg to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a crime. Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law.

The answer to this “gnarly legal question,” as Pomerantz put it, is simply unknown. So there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former president’s actual conduct.

And even if Bragg’s legal team convinces New York’s own courts that this prosecution may move forward, there is also a very real danger that the Supreme Court of the United States, with its GOP-appointed supermajority, could decide that it needs to weigh in on whether Trump should be shielded from this prosecution.

The Supreme Court has long held, under a doctrine known as the “rule of lenity,” that “fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” Thus, when the meaning of a criminal statute is unclear, the Constitution sometimes requires that statute to be read narrowly because an unclear criminal law did not give potential defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was illegal.

The current Court is divided about when this rule of lenity should apply, and whether it provides much protection at all to criminal defendants. But, if the current slate of justices decide that they must have the final word on whether Bragg may prosecute Trump, they could easily invoke the rule of lenity to justify asserting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case.

Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law.

Bragg’s legal theory against Trump, briefly explained

In October 2016, while Trump was at the height of his first presidential campaign, porn actress Stormy Daniels was reportedly preparing to come forward with an allegation that she had sex with Trump in 2006. In an apparent attempt to quash this story, Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000. Trump then reimbursed Cohen for this payment over the course of 2017.

Cohen later pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations arising out of this scheme. The idea behind that prosecution was that because this money was spent to prevent a damaging story from emerging while Trump was campaigning for federal office, it should have been disclosed as a campaign expense and should have been subject to limits on campaign donations.

Trump, in other words, is not being charged for the payments to Daniels themselves (most of the time, paying someone to keep quiet about something is not a crime). He is not being charged with campaign finance violations, either. (After Trump left office in 2021, federal prosecutors reportedly considered charging Trump with a campaign finance violation, but ultimately decided against it.)

Instead, Trump is accused of violating a state law that makes it a crime to falsify business records with the intent to defraud — and doing so specifically to conceal another crime, the federal legal violations at the heart of Cohen’s conviction.

If that sounds convoluted, well, it is. But this convoluted approach may be necessary if Bragg wants to charge Trump with a felony.

Ordinarily, falsifying business records in this way is only a misdemeanor under New York law, meaning that it is considered to be a minor crime that is only punishable by up to a year in prison.

But someone accused of falsifying business records may be charged with a felony if their “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

In a vague statement made after Trump’s arraignment, Bragg claims the concealed records scheme “violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.” But this legal theory is not mentioned at all in the indictment or the accompanying statement of facts.

That leaves the federal campaign finance violation that led to Cohen’s guilty plea.

But it is far from clear that a New York state prosecutor may charge Trump with a felony because he tried to cover up a federal, as opposed to a state, crime.

As Pomerantz writes in his recent book, the felony statute is “ambiguous” — though it refers to “another crime,” it does not say whether this crime may be a federal criminal act or only an act that violates New York’s own criminal law. Worse, Pomerantz writes, “no appellate court in New York has ever upheld (or rejected) this interpretation of the law.”

It’s also possible that Bragg will try to link Trump to a second federal crime allegedly committed by Pecker or his company. As Bragg notes, Pecker’s company “entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with AMI’s payoff of Woman 1.” But linking Trump to a second federal crime does not solve the legal problem that could blow up his felony case.

That doesn’t mean that Bragg will lose, but it does mean that he will have to convince New York’s courts to adopt the more expansive reading of the felony statute in order to sustain a conviction. If the courts embrace the more narrow reading of the statute, that would mean that Trump can only be charged with a misdemeanor.

There’s also one more twist here. The statute of limitations for the felony version of the false records crime is five years, while the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor version is only two years. Trump’s final payment to Cohen occurred in December 2017, which was more than five years ago.

That said, New York law sometimes allows the clock to be stopped on these statutes of limitations when the defendant was out of the state, and Trump spent four years living in the White House before relocating to Florida.

 

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg

Edited April 5, 2023 by erwin

[Amigo]

Interesantno je vidjeti ko podrzava Trampa. Da li je to ona Amerika uz koju smo odrasli gledajuci kaubojske filmove i citajuci stripove?

[Mama_mia]

13 hours ago, Nek grmi jako said:

Ali MSNBC koji nije emitovao Trampov govor 

 

 

 

Ovo zvuci kao kad onaj lik odsece sebi polni organ u inat tasti da joj se svi smeju sto ima takvog zeta.

 

Nije ni to tako strasno sto su msnbc gledaoci morali da promene kanal i gledaju prenos na drugim tv....

Ali ipak svasta od njih, jucerasnji show je tukao i mnogo jace rekorde.

 

Mislim.....Second Coming Of DT

zar to treba neka informativna kuca sebi da dopusti da ne prenosi....ali utrkuju se u lefticarskoj gluposti us style.

 

 

[erwin]

 

[Angelia]

38 minutes ago, DJORDJE said:

Zasto su presli granicu? Zato sto to Trump kaze? Zatvori su puni onih koji su falsifikovali poslovne knjige, nekoliko  njegovih najblizih saradnika priznalo krivicu , a on nevin kao Sormy Daniles.

optuzba je prosla kroz Grand Jury , a njena uloga je upravo to da se onemoguci tuzilac da nekoga proganja bez razloga. Trump se ceo zivot mota po sudovima, sam se hvalio da je ekspert za koriscenje pravosudja u svoju korist, eto jos jedne prilike da se oproba.

Zato sto je ceo slucaj bogus, DOJ je odbio da ga istrazuje za isto. Zato sto ne mogu da dokazu da je bilo sta bilo kriminalno. Ono sto DA u NY radi je kreativno izmisljanje krivicnog dela, koji nije u njihovo jurisdikciji. Radilo se o federalnoj kampanji, a ne drzavnoj. 

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

9 minutes ago, Angelia said:

 Radilo se o federalnoj kampanji, a ne drzavnoj. 

 

Interesantno je da ti tvrdis nesto sto ni pravnici u najvisem vrhu ne mogu da kazu da li je tacno. 

[ters]

38 minutes ago, Amigo said:

Interesantno je vidjeti ko podrzava Trampa. Da li je to ona Amerika uz koju smo odrasli gledajuci kaubojske filmove i citajuci stripove?

Da, Profesor Okultis je definitivno na strani Trampa kao i svi prodavaci snake-oil , a ostali Trampisti se ponasaju kao Zalosne Sove… 

[Angelia]

15 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

Interesantno je da ti tvrdis nesto sto ni pravnici u najvisem vrhu ne mogu da kazu da li je tacno. 

The core of the indictment’s 34 felony charges against Trump relate to recording hush-money payments made via his attorney Michael Cohen as “legal fees.” Under New York state law, if you falsify your own business records, that’s a misdemeanor, a minor crime. To make it a felony, the government needs to prove that the falsification of the record was intended to commit and hide another crime. The indictment doesn’t say specifically what that other crime was. But the DA’s statement of facts seems to indicate that it was violating election law by hiding what was, in effect, a contribution to his campaign.

The first thing that makes those charges legally weak is that Trump can defend himself by saying he ordered the hush money recorded as legal expenses to avoid upsetting his wife, not to conceal the way the payments helped his campaign. That might sound like a shaky defense, especially because prosecutors can say that Trump’s efforts to delay payment until after the 2016 election prove it was about the campaign, not his marriage.

But it wouldn’t take 12 jurors to believe it. If even one juror believes it, then the jury would hang and a conviction would not be possible. Because it is vanishingly unlikely that the district attorney would attempt to retry Trump, the resulting mistrial would be almost as great a victory as would be an acquittal.

The further legal problem is that an appeals court might conclude that the underlying election-related crime can’t be the basis for a New York state crime because Trump was running for president, not for a New York state office. If so, an appeals court might conclude, Trump can’t be found guilty of a New York state felony based on an attempt to affect a national election. Even if Trump loses in the New York courts, he would be able to appeal his case to the US Supreme Court, which might consider the issue one of federal law and reverse the conviction.

And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal. He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him.

 

To se Baby zove pravna akrobatika. I svi pravni experti govore isto, da ne ulazimo u statute of limitation i slicno. Sa jedne strane Bragg tvrdi da je falsifikovao knjige, jer je isplate Cohenu zaveo pod legalne troskove (420k) a da je Cohen od toga isplatio Stormy 130k - znaci nema campaign contribution, i definitivno mogu da kazu da je deo legalni troskovi. Za Peckera mogu da tvrde da je campaign contribution, ali gde je onda falsifikovao knjige? Ali to je onda prekrsaj na federalnom nivou.

 

To se zovi throw everything on the wall, and see what sticks. Cak i da jeste zaveo tih 130k pod legalne troskove to je misdemeanor. 

I ovo sam ti izvadila sa Bloomberga, zamisli kad oni sto su protiv Trampa priznaju da je to problem. 

[Mama_mia]

1 hour ago, DJORDJE said:

 Zatvori su puni onih koji su falsifikovali poslovne knjige, nekoliko  njegovih najblizih saradnika priznalo krivicu , a on nevin

 

Da bilo je toga, npr. “Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime”

 

 da li si kriv ili nisi, koga briga ako si vec priznao da jesi...no, trump je trump, kriv ili ne, lud ili ne, u fokusu je i jednoj i drugoj stranci i strani.... krade show ali to nije njegova zasluga, no vec sam napisala cija je...

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

47 minutes ago, Angelia said:

The core of the indictment’s 34 felony charges against Trump relate to recording hush-money payments made via his attorney Michael Cohen as “legal fees.” Under New York state law, if you falsify your own business records, that’s a misdemeanor, a minor crime. To make it a felony, the government needs to prove that the falsification of the record was intended to commit and hide another crime. The indictment doesn’t say specifically what that other crime was. But the DA’s statement of facts seems to indicate that it was violating election law by hiding what was, in effect, a contribution to his campaign.

The first thing that makes those charges legally weak is that Trump can defend himself by saying he ordered the hush money recorded as legal expenses to avoid upsetting his wife, not to conceal the way the payments helped his campaign. That might sound like a shaky defense, especially because prosecutors can say that Trump’s efforts to delay payment until after the 2016 election prove it was about the campaign, not his marriage.

But it wouldn’t take 12 jurors to believe it. If even one juror believes it, then the jury would hang and a conviction would not be possible. Because it is vanishingly unlikely that the district attorney would attempt to retry Trump, the resulting mistrial would be almost as great a victory as would be an acquittal.

The further legal problem is that an appeals court might conclude that the underlying election-related crime can’t be the basis for a New York state crime because Trump was running for president, not for a New York state office. If so, an appeals court might conclude, Trump can’t be found guilty of a New York state felony based on an attempt to affect a national election. Even if Trump loses in the New York courts, he would be able to appeal his case to the US Supreme Court, which might consider the issue one of federal law and reverse the conviction.

And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal. He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him.

 

To se Baby zove pravna akrobatika. I svi pravni experti govore isto, da ne ulazimo u statute of limitation i slicno. Sa jedne strane Bragg tvrdi da je falsifikovao knjige, jer je isplate Cohenu zaveo pod legalne troskove (420k) a da je Cohen od toga isplatio Stormy 130k - znaci nema campaign contribution, i definitivno mogu da kazu da je deo legalni troskovi. Za Peckera mogu da tvrde da je campaign contribution, ali gde je onda falsifikovao knjige? Ali to je onda prekrsaj na federalnom nivou.

 

To se zovi throw everything on the wall, and see what sticks. Cak i da jeste zaveo tih 130k pod legalne troskove to je misdemeanor. 

I ovo sam ti izvadila sa Bloomberga, zamisli kad oni sto su protiv Trampa priznaju da je to problem. 

 

Quote

To make it a felony, the government needs to prove that the falsification of the record was intended to commit and hide another crime. The indictment doesn’t say specifically what that other crime was. But the DA’s statement of facts seems to indicate that it was violating election law by hiding what was, in effect, a contribution to his campaign.

 

Ok, izgleda da svi ocekuju da im tuzilastvo prospe dokaze pred noge. 

[Nek grmi jako]

Nije reč o dokazima, nego o optužnici.

 

Tramp je, prema Bregu, počinio zločin ne tako što je promenio poslovnu evidenciju, već promenivši poslovnu dokumentaciju kako bi prikrio drugo, ozbiljnije i teže krivično delo ili nekoga prevario.

 

A koje je to teže krivično delo? Pa niko na svetu nema pojma... Tužilac nije rekao.

 

Ali hajde na stranu to što Breg nije rekao koje je to teže krivično delo, nego težeg krivičnog dela zbog kojeg će Tramp u zatvor nema ni u tih 34 optužna predmeta. Reč je o pravnoj akrobatici u kojoj se u stvari multiplikovalo jedno te isto delo, vezano za Stormi Danijels, što možemo da vidimo kada pogledamo datume.

 

Tramp, dakle, u optužnici nije optužen za taj teži zločin koji Breg navodi i bez koga faktički nema slučaja, a iako tužilaštvo ima pravo da ga ne navede u ovoj fazi postupka, to je manje uobičajena praksa jer ako imaš nešto, onda to staviš u optužni predlog, a trebalo bi da i okrivljeni zna zašto ga tužilaštvo tereti.

 

Pa o tome i na CNN juče ceo dan pričaju, a najjača mi je bila neka žena, levičarka naravno, koja je o optužnici doslovno rekla - zašto si poneo nož na revolveraški obračun?

 

Breg, dakle, u 34 optužnice tvrdi da je Tramp počinio kršenje finansiranja kampanje, što je, inače, federalno krivično delo. Problem je što su Savezna izborna komisija i federalni tužioci već odbacili taj slučaj utvrdivši da nije počinjeno federalno krivično delo. 

 

I zato je taj slučaj mnogo slabiji od onoga što smo eventualno očekivali, zato ona žena u studiju CNN pominje da je to nož u revolveraškom obračunu i zato uopšte nije isključena mogućnost da slučaj neće ni stići pred porotu.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Nek grmi jako